orphf13 t1_jed587x wrote on March 31, 2023 at 3:34 AM

It's a formal notice from the government that they believe you have committed a crime.

Lets say you counterfeit $100 and use it to buy something at the store. Later on, the store realizes the bill is fake, and hand it over to the FBI along with their security footage from that day. You're unlucky because you were the only guy to pay with a $100 bill that day, and your face is clearly on video, and they got your license plate from the parking lot, so they quickly learn your address, and what kinda looks to be a paper press in the back of your car. Sucks to be you!

Now he can't just call up the local police and get them to raid your house, that's not how any of this works. First he has to go to a judge, say "I know this guy is counterfeiting, I think he has a machine in his car and I'd like to go find out." The judge would then sign a search warrant and the DA gets to send cops to look at your car. Oops, they found a paper press that can print the bill you used, and a receipt from a local pawn shop for it. The DA might go back to the judge and ask to subpoena the pawn shop, asking for any evidence they may have. They produce an e-mail where you say you were looking for a paper press that can produce realistic looking bills... for movie production of course. You're looking pretty guilty at this point, and you know something's up, but haven't been arrested yet, so you get a lawyer.

Now the DA will bring all of that info to a Grand Jury, who's just a group of 12 people like a normal jury, present all the evidence he has, and asks them "If you were a trial jury, based on this evidence, would you believe that this guy committed a crime?" All 12 vote yes and the Judge signs the Indictment. It's still under seal, but since it's a non-volent crime, they contact your lawyer and say you need to turn yourself in, or the United States Government will hunt you down and arrest you. Your passport is also flagged, so you can't leave.

Obviously the only good option is to turn yourself in, they put the cuffs on and you begin dealing with the American Criminal Justice system. Good luck! You're gonna need it.

Ninjaromeo t1_jed8jde wrote on March 31, 2023 at 4:04 AM

No. Indictment does not mean the court or government thinks you committed a crime. That is why indicted people are often found ~~innocent.~~ not guilty

The grand jury looks at the evidence and is told, assuming all this is true, and that the defense has nothing to disprove any of it and also has no evidence of its own, would you find this person guilty.

It is basically a faux trial with just prosecution and no defense to see if it is worth holding and actual trial. Grand jury trials are not held in most cases, generally only major ones or higher profile ones. It is obviously an unneeded expense, when they can hold a regular trial without one.

Being found guilty by a grand jury is then used as evidence in the actual trial. The jury is told that there is enough evidence to convict, assuming it is all true. That definitely can influence a jury. And can be worth the extra expense, and risk. The risk being that you have to basically prove your case twice then, because innocent by grand jury means no trial.

Edit: strikethrough because I will admit the parts I am wrong about. But don't want to be the guy that just deletes posts to save face.

codsprint t1_jed93pd wrote on March 31, 2023 at 4:10 AM

I may be one of the few here that’s actually presented evidence to a grand jury.

Almost none of that is accurate. First, people aren’t “found innocent,” because the burden of proof is on the government. Defendants are either found guilty or not guilty. Not guilty and innocent are not the same thing.

Further, the defense virtually never directly participates in a grand jury proceeding.

Third, it’s not a trial. Not even close. Evidence is presented under oath to a grand jury, and it is almost never all of the evidence the government has. Generally, only probable cause that one or more offenses has been committed is the standard.

Testimony generated in the grand jury process is also largely irrelevant at the trial phase, except for impeachment purposes on rare occasions.

Ninjaromeo t1_jed9p10 wrote on March 31, 2023 at 4:15 AM

I will acknowledge you correct on all of your corrections of me.

My main point though, is that indictment does not mean that the court or government thinks you are guilty.

You are a knowledgeable person apparently. You agree with that point, correct?

codsprint t1_jedadhh wrote on March 31, 2023 at 4:22 AM

That’s a hard question to answer. The court (for the most part) is not involved in the grand jury proceeding. Obviously, however, representatives of the government likely believe the case is provable, or they wouldn’t be presenting the case to the grand jury.

orphf13 t1_jedomda wrote on March 31, 2023 at 7:12 AM

Sorry little late to the thread, and fair points to you for admitting you’re wrong on the Internet! Lol

From your comment below:

>My main point though, is that indictment does not mean that the court or government thinks you are guilty.

I think we’re just having a miscommunication over what “the government” is. Since you said “court or government” it sounds like you’re saying the US or State government where you’ve been charged, and you’re correct that the entire government considers you innocent until proven guilty.

In court parlance, “The Government” I’m referring to means the prosecutor. If you were indicted, the case would be “The United States vs Ninjaromeo” and you would be referred to as your name or “the defendant,” while the prosecutor would be referred to as “the government.”

Prosecutors do not bring cases against people unless they think they can win the eventual court case, so by that definition, any indictment is the prosecutor (and using that parlance, “the government”) thinking you’re guilty.

And just to comment on your strikethroughs, as you are correct on some points though your interpretations went outside of reality. You’re right that only the prosecutor presents anything, but that is to make sure that based on that evidence they have a trial in the first place. Trials are expensive, and if a case can’t stand up to evidence without a defense, it definitely won’t stand up without one. In some cases the prosecutor can just go to a judge, but grand juries are a way to make that even more impartial particularly in high profile cases where it might be difficult to find an impartial jury.

Your fourth paragraph is where your comment went off the rails though, grand jury proceedings are secret for a reason, and cannot be used as evidence. Only evidence can be used as evidence. If they don’t see that you’ve met probable cause, you aren’t going to win in a trial anyway, so not putting taxpayer dollars toward that is a good thing.

I hope that helps and if we want to look at the only silver lining to trump, it’s that any of us paying attention are getting a great lesson in American civics and our legal system! 😜